1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Debating versus Arguing

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by KJVBibleThumper, Jan 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Respectfully sir, I have done my best to avoid raising issues, and I have done my best to avoid getting pulled into an argument. I did not start this thread to engage in debate. I started this thread as a plea to all my brothers on both sides to show christian charity one to the other in their discussions. I stated my position on the issues that are dealt with on this board, but I did not attempt to charge anybody with anything.

    I stated my position in order to show that while I do differ from many of the fellow believers around here, I still respect them as brothers in Christ.
    Stating my beliefs is not, and was not meant to be a charge against any of my fellow believers.

    The charge that I am unwilling to debate the issues raised is unsupported, because I have been trying to keep this thread from degenerating into the normal way most threads go on here, I have done my best to avoid debating any of the issues, I have striven to merely state my conviction and leave it at that. I have repeatedly offered to handle questions in a new thread, and offered to deal with any questions that people want to know my answer on personally, by PM.

    As regarding the Psalms 12:6-7 issue, I am respecting the moderators request that this issue be avoided because of the way it degenerates into a brawl rapidly. The last thread I started was locked over this issue and our brother C4K in response to my PM, requested that that issue be avoided. Do not charge me with avoiding an argument for merely respecting the moderators wishes. I doubt the moderators would have a problem with PMing over it brother Keith, if you wish to, drop me a PM with your convictions over it and we can discuss the matter fully(or until I get back to college next saturday, whichever comes first =) )

    As for whether the KJVO position is backed by Scripture, I respectfully decline to drag this thread into an argument over it. But I will make this comment, the issue of the Word of God and it's authority and purity, is a major doctrine.

    In Christ,
    Thumper
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Every non-issue you have raised in here has been an issue. Trouble is, they are your statements and not debatable by us, but can be stated by you. Such nonesense! Typical KJVO.

    Sorry mate, try a different lot, and maybe add a little salt and pepper, might give it a little "flavour".

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  3. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother,
    I have not attempted to make anything an issue, other then the fact that there should be a little more decency and order around the boards. Neither have I attempted to keep anybody else from expressing their convictions. I have merely been doing my best to avoid inflaming the issue. Others have made issues out of statements of mine, I have done my best to avoid responding in the same spirit when I have been accused of of something that I have been trying to avoid.

    In Christ,
    Thumper
     
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why don't ya'll start a thread on why non-KJVO is in doctrinal error. :)
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then it should never have been started in a

    DEBATE section!..

    I move that since Thumper didn't want to debate, that this thread be closed, or moved to a NON-DEBATE section.

    Personally, I feel offended that you, now, having said that you didn't start this thread to debate, but in said thread has called all of us that are not KJVO people who have doctrinal errors...

    It makes this thread seem like you just wanted your side heard, and was an easy way of slandering other versions, along with those who use the other versions.

    MOds, since Thumper don't want to debate, please take appropriate action on this thread that is in a debate section...

    Please.
     
  6. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not C4K, but I am going to offer something in this open debate forum, nonetheless.

    stilllearning, I have previously offered that I very seriously doubt that virtually any on the BB have ever held in their hands any 1611 edition of the KJV, and most (and I would very strongly suspect you be included, among this crowd) have never so much as even seen one, in person. I certainly have not, and if one has not seen one in "Gothic typeset", I absolutely know this to be true.

    I did have the rare privilege, a few years ago (and my bride and I missed regular mid-week services, in order to attend this unique presentation) to see a traveling Bible exhibit, which featured, among other things, two pages visible from a 1612 edition, in Roman typeface, that was opened in a locked and sealed, climate-controlled unit, visible through glass, at about five feet away (with security present), along with some manuscript sheets, both OT and NT, in the Hebrew and Greek, also in hermetically sealed glass containers. Accompanying this was a reproduction, hand operated wooden printing press, weighing about four tons, and moveable type, where they reproduced for visitors a page of the Bible text of the 1612 edition. As it took about 3 minutes to print two pages, (and an hour or more for the ink to sufficiently 'dry' without smearing, so we visitors could have a sheet) and the press would only print two pages at a time, this was a slow process, indeed. The sheet we picked up had been printed about three hours before we received it, if my memory serves. And as the type had to be manually inserted into the press, and the type was changed from time to time, as different pages were printed, on different days, even this allowed for the possibility of 'printer error', as well. (Incidentally, the 'type-setter' does not see the letters of the type, but a 'mirror-image', as he or she inserts the type, in order to print.)

    That was for information, for any interested.

    Now, I am going just a bit further. I seriously doubt you have ever even seen a 1769 edition, as well. (You did claim to support this, correct?) (I never have, I know. In fact, I seriously doubt I have ever even come close, in this.) Does the Bible edition you are claiming to support contain the Apocrypha? Is it in your copy? If it does not, guess what? It is not a 1611 Edition; it's not a 1612 edition; it's not even a 1769 edition. Is it printed in the United States? If yes, it is not a 1769.

    Let me mention three added things.

    First, is the axiom that "Two things that are different cannot possibly be the same."

    Although it would seem that one should not ever have to repeat this, apparently that is not the case.

    Second is the famous quote of an outstanding scholar of a century ago, Dean John W. Burgon, when he says (regarding the TR, at that)
    In fact, Dr. Burgon listed ~ 150 examples for Matthew, alone, with the overwhelming majority being adopted by Hodges and Farstad, as well.

    Third happens to be two quotes of Dr. D. A. Waite of Collingswood, N.J. that mentions Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, almost in the same breath (What is it that surely must have been affecting the Collingswood water supply, for so many years??), where he made this remark after Hodges and Farstad (Greek NT, Majority text) had noted where the consensus of the MT differed from the TR in <1800 instances, with 1000 of the instances affecting translation.
    Incidentally, Morgan and Peirpont ('Greek NT, Byzantine/Majority textform') have made essentially the same observation as did Hodges and Farstad.

    I don't care that apparently you, along with Dr. Waite don't want to change, for that part doesn't bother me, in the least. However, it does bother me when someone attempts to impose this preference on the facts or other individuals, or when facts, and/or others, including myself are misrepresented. That is a completely different "kettle of fish" and I'm not at all partial to fish, in the first place!

    Especially those fish best described as "Too Long, No Sea"!

    Ed
     
  7. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hey, you giving out my secrets to the laypeople... :laugh:
     
  8. ray Marshall

    ray Marshall New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Debating doesn't prove anything. Usually both sides think they won.
     
  9. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    As this topic has veered wildly out of control, and the original reason I started it has been lost. I request a moderator close it.

    In regards to all the questions that have been asked of me, I will to my best to start threads dealing with each of the major ones, over the next 48 hours.

    Brethren, please remember though, treat each other with respect, although we disagree majorly on some very important issues, we are still brethren and should behave as such. Make every post a worthwhile and well thought out effort.
    Above all, respect the other brother.

    In Christ,
    Thumper
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the way back in post #2, webdog made a good point.

    As for any argument(s) that may be ongoing here, I have only one question.

    "Who started it?"

    The answer would appear to be fairly obvious.

    Ed
     
    #70 EdSutton, Jan 10, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2009
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, reading this thread, I only wish that when I was about their age, I knew as much then, as KJVBibleThumper and stilllearning know, now.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    Ya' know, come to think of it, I did!

    Ed
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Closed .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...